What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
McCain is trying to help Toomey by blowing the SCOTUS/"librul judges!!11!" whistle to Pennsyltuckians. He's not stupid - he knows they're fcked if the Democrats regain the Senate majority. They won't be able to justify a filibuster of Hill's nominees with a majority if the public if they are not at least 50/50.
Click to expand...

Smoke or not. You make your bed, you lie in it.

Conservatives supporting this position have lost their last leg in terms of 'love of Constitution'.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

This is a losing strategy. It's the kind of **** that will resonate with voters going into the polls.

This will hurt them. The DNCC has probably been waiting for this for months. They probably had the ads racked and ready to go.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

It helps with the base and hurts with independents. They desperately need every independent they can get.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

From the other thread:

5mn_Major said:
Remember the plan to let the people decide regarding Obama's SCOTUS picks?

“I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up. I promise you,” McCain said Monday, according to CNN.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ton-supreme-court_us_58050653e4b0162c043d4c9a

So much for conservatives' love of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Where are they against it? The Senate gives it advice and consent on presidential nominees. Nowhere does it say it must be a rubber stamp.

If tD wins, it will be fillibuster city by Chuck and co. If the Dems capture the Senate and tD wins the WH, do you think any SCOTUS nominee is getting through?

We may be at the point of a Missouri Compromise on SCOTUS nominees. RBG retires and the Senate approves one conservative and one liberal. It's not workable for the long term, but it will get the Court back to 9.

When Kennedy retires, Ft. Sumter.

And Kep - what did you mean by a liberal Scalia? I'm interested in that thought. We're probably thinking 2 different things, but maybe not.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

He means a judge that will scorch the conservative earth with his liberal policies.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

I don't really care if it's liberal or conservative. Those goalposts move.

I just want a judge that will do what's right. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you vote, that's the liberals right now.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

joecct said:
From the other thread:

Where are they against it? The Senate gives it advice and consent on presidential nominees. Nowhere does it say it must be a rubber stamp.

If tD wins, it will be fillibuster city by Chuck and co. If the Dems capture the Senate and tD wins the WH, do you think any SCOTUS nominee is getting through?

We may be at the point of a Missouri Compromise on SCOTUS nominees. RBG retires and the Senate approves one conservative and one liberal. It's not workable for the long term, but it will get the Court back to 9.

When Kennedy retires, Ft. Sumter.

And Kep - what did you mean by a liberal Scalia? I'm interested in that thought. We're probably thinking 2 different things, but maybe not.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what your posting.

Are you saying there's no way that the GOP would block 'any' nominee? Which is exactly what McCain said. And therefore, you're claiming they wouldn't (I'm guessing you have no inside track to the inner circle of the GOP). But then you're claiming that the Dems would...even though they haven't said such a thing and never have permanently blocked an incoming president from nominating a pick?

Both sides are expected to evaluate nominees and ultimately pick one. Not unconditionally reject 'any' that are nominated.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
I don't really care if it's liberal or conservative. Those goalposts move.

I just want a judge that will do what's right. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you vote, that's the liberals right now.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I was being sarcastic as the rights fear of it being anything but conservative is driving so much loony behavior
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

joecct said:
From the other thread:



Where are they against it? The Senate gives it advice and consent on presidential nominees. Nowhere does it say it must be a rubber stamp.

If tD wins, it will be fillibuster city by Chuck and co. If the Dems capture the Senate and tD wins the WH, do you think any SCOTUS nominee is getting through?

We may be at the point of a Missouri Compromise on SCOTUS nominees. RBG retires and the Senate approves one conservative and one liberal. It's not workable for the long term, but it will get the Court back to 9.

When Kennedy retires, Ft. Sumter.

And Kep - what did you mean by a liberal Scalia? I'm interested in that thought. We're probably thinking 2 different things, but maybe not.
Click to expand...

They made their bed...now they dont like that they backed the wrong horse and want to take their ball and go home. Sorry but if they dont want to do their job they can retire and move along. They said the people would decide time for them to honor their BS. I doubt you would be singing the praises of Dems doing the same thing...

And sorry but screw the idea of a Missouri Compromise...there is no need to guarantee conservative or liberal justices for the court.
 
5mn_Major said:
I have no idea what your posting.

Are you saying there's no way that the GOP would block 'any' nominee? Which is exactly what McCain said. And therefore, you're claiming they wouldn't (I'm guessing you have no inside track to the inner circle of the GOP). But then you're claiming that the Dems would...even though they haven't said such a thing and never have?

Both sides are expected to evaluate nominees and ultimately pick one. Not unconditionally reject 'any' that are nominated.
Click to expand...

The Senate is doing its job. Nowhere does the Costitution require a vote on any nominee.

What Meandering Mitch should have done was stretch out the process by holding hearings and have the Judiciary committee take its sweet time coming up with a recommendation. With any luck, they could have recessed for the election without holding a vote. But it would have given whats his name his day in the sun.

But nobody said Mitch is a MENSA candidate.
 
joecct said:
The Senate is doing its job. Nowhere does the Costitution require a vote on any nominee.

What Meandering Mitch should have done was stretch out the process by holding hearings and have the Judiciary committee take its sweet time coming up with a recommendation. With any luck, they could have recessed for the election without holding a vote. But it would have given whats his name his day in the sun.

But nobody said Mitch is a MENSA candidate.
Click to expand...
You'd be ok if the dems said all this? Really?
 
joecct said:
The Senate is doing its job. Nowhere does the Costitution require a vote on any nominee.

What Meandering Mitch should have done was stretch out the process by holding hearings and have the Judiciary committee take its sweet time coming up with a recommendation. With any luck, they could have recessed for the election without holding a vote. But it would have given whats his name his day in the sun.

But nobody said Mitch is a MENSA candidate.
Click to expand...

Advocating political cowardice? Proud moment, eh Joe?
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

Maybe your party should have nominated a better candidate. But good luck p_ssing into the wind as your party *****es about the consequences of elections. elections they staked their entire claim to the court on. Backpedal and watch support for your party melt away along with its Machiavellian tactics.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS VIII redux: IX is being blocked by the Senate.

joecct said:
The Senate is doing its job. Nowhere does the Costitution require a vote on any nominee.

What Meandering Mitch should have done was stretch out the process by holding hearings and have the Judiciary committee take its sweet time coming up with a recommendation. With any luck, they could have recessed for the election without holding a vote. But it would have given whats his name his day in the sun.

But nobody said Mitch is a MENSA candidate.
Click to expand...

And so what happens if the GOP refuses to vote on a SCOTUS nominee indefinitely? What happens if they do the same in legislature? The Constitution breaks down. It doesn't work. The government functions of the Constitution. If you're endgame is we win or the US government (which is in essence the Constitution) fails, then you're no fan...because that's the likely outcome you've put on the table.
 
Handyman said:
They made their bed...now they dont like that they backed the wrong horse and want to take their ball and go home. Sorry but if they dont want to do their job they can retire and move along. They said the people would decide time for them to honor their BS. I doubt you would be singing the praises of Dems doing the same thing...

And sorry but screw the idea of a Missouri Compromise...there is no need to guarantee conservative or liberal justices for the court.
Click to expand...

Yet the Missouri Compromise was used to admit Maine (free) and Missouri (slave) and established a geographical boundary on the expansion of slavery.

Jefferson hated it.

But it lowered the pressure in the cooker for a while, but hindsight showed it was imperfect.

Nothing is going to happen on SCOTUS as long as the Senate keeps being as divided now as it was in 1820.

Compromise is just that. You don't get everything you want, I don't get everything that I want, but we each come away with something palatable. Right now, there is no compromise.
 
GrinCDXX said:
Advocating political cowardice? Proud moment, eh Joe?
Click to expand...

No. Jeepers, we're talking politics here. There's a dance to be played for the folks in Peoria and Petaluma. There was no way Garland was going to be approved with this Congress. But the game has to be played out according to time honored rules. Not opening the game box is contrary to the game's rules.
 
joecct said:
No. Jeepers, we're talking politics here. There's a dance to be played for the folks in Peoria and Petaluma. There was no way Garland was going to be approved with this Congress. But the game has to be played out according to time honored rules. Not opening the game box is contrary to the game's rules.
Click to expand...

Time honored rules...when is the last time a vacancy sat (or was threatened to sit) for so long? I honestly don't know
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top